Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Oh Piom Mo [1998] PGNC 131; N1704 (11 March 1998)

N1704

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1475/96

THE STATE

-v-

PETER OH PIOM MO

Kavieng: JALINA, J.
1998: 10 & 11 March

Mr. N.T Sios for the State
Mr. J.S. Reeve for the Prisoner

SENTENCE

JALINA, J.: This prisoner has been convicted following a trial for bribery. This offence carries a penalty of a fine at the discretion of the court or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven (7) years, or both pursuant to s. 97B(1) of the Criminal Code.

He is aged about 65 years, is an Australian citizen and is married with three (3) grown up children. His wife and children live in Sydney, Australia. Evidence adduced during trial shows that he came to Papua New Guinea in 1988 and started a small company called Keake Enterprise in Rabaul which was of course destroyed by the 1994 volcanic eruption. The reason he was using the same office as Goldstar Shipping in Kokopo at the time of the offence was the destruction of his premises in Rabaul.

He has not been in trouble with the law before either in Korea or Australia. His lawyer Mr Reeve in submitting that a lenient sentence firstly by way of a fine or a suspended sentence be imposed on the prisoner, said that the prisoner did not hold any shares in Goldstar Shipping nor was he an employee of that company. He did not stand to gain anything personally but was caught in the actions and decisions of others. To the extent that the Principal of Goldstar Shipping, Jack Namaliu played virtually no part at all in relation to the vessel for which his company was the agent and Goldstar Shipping stood to benefit, I accept such an argument. Mr Reeve further submitted that in line with the character evidence from various church and business people, he was a community minded person who was willing to help people. He has in fact helped a number of communities even though, he, like most other businesses in Rabaul, was still trying to put his business on the right track after the eruption. Mr Reeve submitted that in view of his company being a small company and the destruction by the volcanic eruption it is not one with great financial resources and should I decide to impose a fine I should bear this in mind.

Mr Reeve further submitted that should I consider a term of imprisonment then in view of his advanced age, I should suspend that sentence. Furthermore, because of lack of funds, the conditions in the prisons were such that a person of his age would place his health at risk. In fact he found the conditions in prison difficult when he was in custody prior to his release on bail.

In deciding the punishment I should impose on this prisoner, I have taken into account his lack of prior convictions and his personal particulars. I note that s. 97B(1) gives me very wide discretion in the type of punishment I could impose. Whilst I note that bribery is nothing but corruption which needs to be stamped out through imposition of stiff penalties so that others do not commit similar crimes, each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstance. In the circumstances of this case I note that the amount was small. I also note that if Mr Pawut had dissociated himself and gone away after refusing the offer at Malangan Lodge Mr Oh would not have gone to the extent of leaving the money in the vehicle while they were driving to Kavieng Hotel. I also note that imposition of a custodial sentence on a man of advanced age for this type of offence where no life is lost or the amount is small or no one has suffered any loss may end up with the loss of his own life. I would rather save life than being an instrument through which life may be lost. I accordingly, in the exercise of my discretion, impose a fine of K2,000.00 and in this respect I order that the K2,000.00 cash, the subject of the charge and which has been tendered as an exhibit during trial, be converted into a fine.

I further order that his bail money and his passport be returned to him.

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the Prisoner: Warner Shand Lawyers